Video: Huckabee battles Stewart over gay marriage
posted at 3:35 pm on December 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Nothing you haven’t heard before but I know how much Hot Air readers like to watch Huck squirm. The tone is set early, with Stewart pressing him on why conservatives think government should be in the business of commanding armies but not, say, handing out cheese or otherwise playing perpetual wet nurse to the population. The gay marriage exchange comes in the second clip; as often happens with opponents, he hops from one justification to the other without trying very hard on any of them. First it’s tradition, then it’s a slippery slope to polygamy, then (by implication) it’s a distinction between immutable traits like race and “lifestyle choices” like homosexuality, then it’s procreation. He’s in retreat the whole way. Not his finest hour.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
I’m afraid you did. perhaps not conciously, but you did. you have no proof that sexual preference is genetic. sorry charlie!!
us ‘breeders’ sure do a better job at relationships than you gays.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 7:52 AM
And no real social conservative would spout the beliefs you (or others supporting gay marriage) have concerning this issue.
I won’t argue your conservative credentials on other matters, as I have never thought you were a moonbat before, but you can’t claim conservatism on this issue. Sorry, pal.
mwdiver on December 11, 2008 at 8:10 AM
Sorry if it’s politically incorrect. What would you prefer to be called? The distinction isn’t based on your belief in the bible, it’s based on your specific interpretation of the bible and the fact that you think your specific interpretation should form a basis for public policy.
‘Fundamentalist’ generally describes literalist religious traditions with political ambitions. If the shoe fits…
RightOFLeft on December 11, 2008 at 8:14 AM
If the door is opened to gay marriage, how can you logically argue that it should NOT be opened to other lifestyle choices….seriously?
and if it is opened to ALL arrangements, where does it leave the institution and society in which family is the bedrock? This is no more than an attempt by leftists to remove families as the principle strength in a society and replace it with government programs, big brother, or anything but a structure based around morality.
“It takes a village to raise a child” (code words for get out of the way and let us do it)
Goodeye_Closed on December 11, 2008 at 8:57 AM
very true. he also uses a typical tactic of the left, accusing your opponents of ‘hate’ while he is unable to argue the issue on the merits.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Hmm… I see that you allow for an “end-all be-all knower of what is conservative,” so long as it’s you.
Akzed on December 11, 2008 at 9:01 AM
truth hurts doesn’t it? the only revisionist history is that the homosexuals were ‘victims’ of the nazis just like the jews were. most of the nazis were gay (rohm, heydrich, hess, goering) and of course hitler was never married..and had a ‘cover’ relationship with eva braun.
since you gays act just like the nazis did, refusing to accept the will of the people in a vote, preferring to impose your beliefs on others, and trying to silence any who disagree, your actions make the case.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 9:02 AM
our beliefs about marriage have thousands of years of history to back us up, across cultures, races, continents. homosexuality is always a feature of the end-of-empires, such as the roman empire. its always been a debased, and degenerate practice.
30-0. loser.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 9:05 AM
notice there is no heterosexual organization that is the equivalent of NAMBLA.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Are you actually arguing that conservatives harbor as much hate as to refer to anyone who disagrees with them on a widely contested issue as nazis?
Holy crow.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 9:47 AM
And whose tactic is it to refer to opponents on an issue as nazis?
Oh yeah. Trolls.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 9:48 AM
[[[homosexuality is always a feature of the end-of-empires, such as the roman empire. its always been a debased, and degenerate practice.
right4life on December 11, 2008]]]
That is absolutely the bottom line truth that the PC thought police would NEVER allow as an argument in the mainstream…but it is reality. While MOST gay lifestyles are not on the level of NAMBLA or the likes, it is a lesser branch of the same tree…a deviant behavior clawing for legitimacy. Granting same sex marriage would legitimize homosexuality on par with heterosexuality.
Goodeye_Closed on December 11, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Just like there’s no NAAWP.(National Assosiaction for the Advancement of White People)
If you’re a minority, you get to use it as a shield.
See, NAMBLA isn’t pedophiles, they’re just homosexuals who prefer younger
conquestspartnersBKennedy on December 11, 2008 at 9:49 AM
FIFY.
BKennedy on December 11, 2008 at 9:51 AM
uh moron, the gays are using nazi tactics…as I’ve said:
get a clue.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 9:53 AM
I’ve already explained why I believe what I believe on this issue, and how it is linked to my conservative beliefs.
Trying to claim absolutism on these kinds of issues as to an ideology is foolhardy. Some conservatives claim abortion should be outlawed altogether, no exceptions. Some conservatives claim Roe V Wade should be overturned, and states should be allowed to vote on it. Both of them are rooted in conservative principles. Remember the Elian Gonzalez mess? Which was the “true” conservative outlook? That the kid should stay in the freedom of the USA? Or should be returned to his father, since family is the most important thing?
Keep making conclusions in black and white on these things. It takes the least amount of thought, so it’s easy for some to make so quick a conclusion. Meanwhile, I’ll actually think about the issue, apply the ideals I’ve learned from conservative leaders, and not religious leaders.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 9:55 AM
very true.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 9:56 AM
In part, it’s what I witness on sites like this – in the name of “conservatism” – that convinces me to never associate myself with the ‘conservative’ movement.
Of course, the same can be said for ‘liberalism’, and its associated sites.
Just as well my psychology is that of a ‘lone wolf’.
LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 9:56 AM
and the most amount of courage.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Considering there are a couple of gems on this site that actually put forth the idea of a “gay agenda” that includes “fema death camps”, and calls for gays to be expelled from this country due to being “99% of the atheists”, I believe homophobe fits once in a while.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 9:57 AM
absolutely true. the same logic of the homosexual ‘lifestyle’ can be applied to pedophilia.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Proving Godwin’s Law takes zero courage, pal.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Great logic.
So heterosexual pedophiles aren’t pedophiles, they’re just heterosexuals who prefer younger partners?
So there are no more pedophiles. Wonderful. You’ve solved a major problem in seconds.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 10:01 AM
you’re not my ‘pal’ sonny. the gays are nazis, their tactics prove it. your approval of those tactics, and their agenda say all that needs to be said about you.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Is nonexistent. You’re so blinded with your hatred of anyone who disagrees with you that you’ve never paid attention to the dozens of times I’ve spoken out about the thuggery of Anti-Prop 8ers in California. Check the post with the video of the old woman having her cross crushed. Lie about me all you like, but it only takes a click to prove you wrong.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Yes: if Heterosexuals could claim minority status, that is. Call it the SACLU (Straight Adult-Child Love Union), and all pedophiles mysteriously dissapear. After All, SACLU could never support something like pedophilia!
Had you gotten the thrust of my post, it is that NAMBLA is a bunch of pedophiles. They are merely allowed to exist because they claim they are a minority.
I forget who it was, but there was someone who talked about the inherent virtue of the oppressed. Since minorities are assumed to be oppressed, none of their goals could possibly be malevolent.
BKennedy on December 11, 2008 at 10:13 AM
I agree entirely with your point. I don’t like the abuse of minority status any more than you. However, you’re not actually comparing an organized bunch of attention-loving pedophiles to all homosexuals, are you?
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 10:16 AM
looks like you are the one blinded by hatred of me, and anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda.
since you disagree with their thuggish tactics, why do you support their thuggish agenda??
and why do object to their action, and agenda being truthfully described as nazi, or fascist??
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 10:17 AM
There really is no way to disguise your brand of ugliness. You can practically smell it.
LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Some gay people do succeed as a couple while raising children, so there is some evidence that “never” isn’t the right frequency.
Gay couples don’t have the same tax treatment for income or inheritance.
dedalus on December 11, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Their agenda is not thuggish, as the vast majority of gay marriage supporters have not threatened others as that band of insane San Francisco fruit loops did.
See previous answer. They’re lobbying for civil unions between gay couples to be referred to as marriages by the government. You’re extrapolating a mass conspiracy of future initiatives infringing on free speech and free expression based on that. I’m sure others felt the same when it was proposed that interracial marriages be allowed. How come you aren’t still fighting that fight?
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 10:24 AM
the gay agenda is truly ugly and scary. but you have no problem ending the freedom of others to advance that agenda. you are the ugly one.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 10:24 AM
get a clue, their agenda is to silence any who dare disagree with them, in any manner necessary. I’ve already posted several examples of what their agenda leads to, and its the end of freedom
don’t have to ‘extrapolate’ anything. its already occuring before our eyes.
and to declare gay rights with civil rights is insulting and lie. and black people do not agree with you at all. by your logic pedophilia is a civil right.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 10:26 AM
That happened in the eyes of the law when the anti-sodomy and anti-fornication laws were overturned. A couple has the same Constitutional right to privacy during sex whether they are gay or straight.
dedalus on December 11, 2008 at 10:26 AM
What a pitiful little homo sapien you must be.
LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 10:28 AM
So you’re equivocating homosexuality with pedophilia. Says all that needs to be said about you.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 10:32 AM
No.
I may share the same public policy position as SaintOlaf, apacalyps, RedPill, etc, but as far as the shipping people off or reviving sodomy laws or other gross influences of government coercion, count me out.
Although I would be willing to put money that atheism and homosexuality correlate more strongly than Christianity and homosexuality, it isn’t really relevant to the question of “Should the government give legal recognition and by extension benefits tied to married status to same-sex relationships?”
That’s the question for me. Not “Should homosexuality be outlawed” or “Should we revive sodomy laws” or “Should openly gay people be refused the right to vote, work, etc.”
None of those questions have anything to do with changing the current, existing law which is understood as marriage is a social contract exclusively between one man and one woman over the age of consent who are not immediate family.
BKennedy on December 11, 2008 at 10:32 AM
yeah NAMBLA Exists…name the hetero equivalent…you cannot.
homosexuality is not a trait. it is a behavior. to equate a behavior with a trait is laughable and a lie. but since you’ve got nothing else, you have to lie. and you do so frequently.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 10:37 AM
what a pitiful piece of trash you are.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 10:38 AM
You’re on your own MadisonC, I’ve no more stomach for these primates.
LimeyGeek on December 11, 2008 at 10:40 AM
and not enough wit to keep up.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 10:46 AM
You don’t have to put your stomach into it. It’s like teasing a kitten with a crumpled up ball of paper.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Right4life, I don’t know why I am gay. It is some of you folks who keep claiming that it is not genetic. And, geneticists say that they don’t know. I don’t know why I am gay, I just am. Straight people have an enormous amount of support that begins in early childhood. Gays don’t have that support. Could that be part of the reason as to why gays have more trouble with their relationships? How would you have behaved if you found yourself homosexual at the age of 13, with no support…………
SC.Charlie on December 11, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Madison…interracial marriage is still one man and one woman so equating the two is a red herring. we may argue against gay marriage but that doesn’t make us racists. only the left uses those tactics.
SIDE NOTE: It shows a strength of intellect for us to disagree here that you will NOT find on leftist discussions, but I say we call for a truce on the name calling and personal attacks. I disagree with Madison but he has been one of the more thoughtful and eloquent posters for a while now. I guarantee you Barry Goldwater would not have a big problem with gay marriage (even though as a conservative, I do)and he is practically the author of mondern conservatism whom Regan and Buckley modeled themselves after.
Goodeye_Closed on December 11, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Well, technically, if you ignore a “wo” in that statement, then gay men can marry all they like. Lesbians seem to be out of luck though.
I keed, I keed.
I think it just comes down to fundamental difference of opinion, which is the conclusion I’ve come down to before. I fully understand the position you hold, as I used to hold it myself. It was only after reflection about the idea and how it jives with conservative beliefs as I know them that I began to rethink my position. I can only agree to disagree, as someone who is also a conservative and on their way to their own marriage. As before, I think it is easily possible for these kinds of issues to be hotly contested within our own ranks, as it often is with abortion and other issues.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 10:57 AM
You’ll never get him to put himself in those shoes, SC.Charlie. He’s too busy frothing at the mouth and calling it “wit”.
On a slightly different tenor, I’d like to posit a thought regarding a previous comment:
Probably true. I would suggest that that’s due to the hostility that most Christian denominations show to homosexuality. A fair number of Christians behave like our oh-so-charitable Mr. right2life here, so it’s fairly understandable why homosexuals would want nothing to do with his brand of thought.
Now, the next question becomes whether atheism is a character flaw, or inherently less desirable that Christianity. That’s a bigger question that requires more beer than I have, but I’d tentatively respond “no” and “maybe”.
Mal Carne on December 11, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Why are you scared? Two guys or two women forming a relationship and wanting it formalized by the government isn’t that frightening. It’s not attractive to me but there are plenty of hetero couples that are pretty ugly too. It’s voluntary you know… no one is going to rape you.
lexhamfox on December 11, 2008 at 11:04 AM
I’ve never labeled those against gay marriage as homophobes. It’s just a natural order of progression that, this being the internet, there were bound to be a couple of true homophobes speaking of gay conspiracy theories and calling for their deportation that bobbed up in this discussion. Please don’t think that I correlate being against gay marriage with bigotry. I was against it myself for quite a while.
I also agree on your side note, although it must be pointed out that this is more due to the support for free thought posed by this site. Red State and LGF have had tendencies to ban people based on holding one side of creationism or not supporting Rudy Giuliani. Hot Air has a very good reputation for fostering open discussion. Overall though, sites like DailyKos and DU just make me chuckle. Democratic, indeed.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Atheism may be a character flaw. Unless one is something of a pantheist, it is reasonable to think that believers of different faiths have some character flaws.
Relying on supernatural guidance for character can be positive, however, U.S. law recognizes the rights of people with various beliefs about character. It makes sense that the government law is broader than family, institutional, or religious rules.
dedalus on December 11, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I am a Mormon, and as such reviled by the gay community now. We Mormons have an article of faith that reads “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God”. That is one of the reasons why we are called non-christians by other christian organizations that teach that there can’t be more revelations but the reason I bring this up is because we do not support our opposition to gay marriage on scriptures from the Bible alone but on a modern day living prophet that teaches us thus. Please read this http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0 We are opposed to gay marriage because gender is an eternal characteristic and not something to “be determined” by our very human and finite minds. Sorry Allah to bring even more religion into your thread but I think you need it :-)
TitleofLiberty on December 11, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Dude..do you work? Or are you one of those welfare queens my tax dollars support? You spend an awful lot of time sitting around and responding to each and every comment that you don’t like.
lolwut on December 11, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Why am I reminded of this saying? “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” I’ve made my stand. It won’t be changing. You have made yours, although, you changed your original stand, which could point out that your stand now, could also change. If it does change, and to whichever direction it may change, doesn’t make you a bad person, just one that would appear to have weak convictions. Again, not saying you are bad for that, just diffent than many of us here.
mwdiver on December 11, 2008 at 11:34 AM
No. I’m arguing that you’re dumb as a sack of hammers.
Akzed on December 11, 2008 at 11:35 AM
TitleofLiberty on December 11, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Akzed on December 11, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Both are perversions. You approve of one and not the other. Maybe someone approves of the other but not the one. No problem for you I suppose.
Akzed on December 11, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Conviction does not mean maintaining a position even in the face of information that challenges your position. You’re confusing conviction with the constant support of one side of an issue. Conviction is dedication to a principle. My principle is not for or against gay marriage. My principle is conservatism against big government, and against religious initiatives becoming law, like the proposed marriage amendment.
I’ll make this clear again, so you don’t make the same mistake: Conviction is not based on unconditional steadfastness on one side of an issue, unless all you are about is the issue. I’m about a set of principles, and those I do not waver on.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 11:45 AM
…and a Geo Metro and a Lamborghini Reventon are both cars.
That’s where the similarities end.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 11:47 AM
That’s nice.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Both may be perversions, but pedophilia is illegal due to the violation of another person’s rights. Sex between adult gays, as with sex between unmarried straight couples, is protected by law.
dedalus on December 11, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Definition 3, in case you were wondering. So, don’t try to tell me my definition of “conviction” is wrong.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/convictions
Enjoy your day. Believe as you wish. Change your convictions as often as you wish, for any reason you wish.
My last post on the subject: Don’t blast others for intolerance, while you, yourself, practice the same intolerance.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypocrite
mwdiver on December 11, 2008 at 11:55 AM
I didn’t tell you your definition of conviction is wrong, I told you what you were basing it on is wrong. I do not have conviction about gay marriage. I have conviction about conservatism. Before you continue with the name-calling, try reading a little bit closer.
The only intolerance I possess is towards those who claim I am intolerant. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, junior.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Woah. You just made the jump from laughably ignorant to dangerously ignorant. Take a deep breath and calm down. Hitler banned all homosexual organizations and raided their gathering places. You’re no better than the Holocaust deniers in Iran.
crr6 on December 11, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Hey Akzed I don’t know if you were trying to be funny or if you meant this to be a seriuos review of the mormon faith, but sout park? really? is that what you rely on? WOW.
TitleofLiberty on December 11, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Oops…don’t you justr hate it when your own words prove you wrong?
mwdiver on December 11, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Not neccessarily. Several states and municipalities ban prostitution. Mostly unmarried relations are unproscripted by law. There really is no way to protect one’s right to relations with someone else, since it is “protected” by inaction rather than action.
BKennedy on December 11, 2008 at 12:23 PM
What is intolent?
Can it help me shed off unwanted body fat in minutes?
BKennedy on December 11, 2008 at 12:24 PM
When they do, you be sure and let me know. For now, though, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that conviction to an issue and conviction to an ideology are two entirely different things. That’s fine. The lovely thing about this nation is that you are free to deny whatever truth you want.
First, we haven’t agreed on anything. Secondly, maybe I am intolent, whatever that is. However, between the two of us, the only intolerance shown is you having intolerance towards conservatives who support gay marriage, because, like it or not, they do exist. In the same way you are refusing to separate conviction to an issue from conviction to an ideology or set of principles, so you refuse to separate an ideology from an issue. It’s mind-bogglingly wrong.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Nope, Billy Mays sells it. It’ll not only take the stains out of your clothes, it’ll take the colors too! KA-BOOM!
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Unmarried relations are unregulated due to the courts overturning them. A few decades ago many states had laws that restricted consensual sex between adults. They were struck down from the 70’s to the 90’s. The 1972 Supreme Court case of Eisenstadt v. Baird indirectly addresses the subject.
One can have sex with a prostitute and give the prostitute money. The crime is the solicitation of a pay-for-sex transaction. A DA could prosecute if the police had evidence of the transaction. If all the police had was evidence of sex, then the case probably doesn’t get to court.
dedalus on December 11, 2008 at 12:40 PM
the real problem becomes when you say that a behavior, any behavior, is genetic then you open up a huge can of worms. if homosexuality is genetic, then so is pedophilia, so is rape. perhaps murder is genetic. so then why should we have laws against any behavior, since those behaviors are genetic?? then anything goes, because we are just victims of our biology. and we cannot be held responsible for any of our actions.
I think you are gay because you did not have the support. I have had several friends that are gay…and I have noticed their relationship with their father….its rather sad…and I think at the heart of their homosexuality.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Back to the issue of gay marriage. I remember that one of liberalism’s first attack on marriage was “who needs a piece of paper to validate their relationship, to tell them they can be happy” or “we don’t need a piece of paper to tell us we are supposed to be together or not”, see Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn for example. What happened to that? What is so different between heterosexual marriage and gay marriage that gays do need that piece of paper to make them happy, to make them whole? Don’t give me the “rights” answer, because I can go to my lawyer right now and give my dog whatever rights over my property I want to give it and so can anybody in this country. I have a brother in law who is gay and we get along perfectly so no, I don’t hate gays but I don’t accept their lifestyle and I don’t like it when they try to force me to accept it as they did in California after they lost the referendum on gay marriage, twice. They want it to be official because -at least in part- then they would sue whatever church won’t allow them to get married in their houses of worship, and once again force us to accept what we object to. If you don’t believe me, look at what the dating services on line are going through because they choose not to offer their services to gays.
TitleofLiberty on December 11, 2008 at 12:41 PM
uh yeah given that Hitler was most likely gay himself, along with Goering, Hess, Heydrich, Rohm….
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 12:47 PM
because of the end of religious liberty that will happen once gay marriage gets imposed upon us…try reading the earlier posts…
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 12:49 PM
A dating service has fewer Constitutional protections that a church has. Even so, eHarmony would have had a strong case had they gone to court.
One doesn’t have to respect all the marriages that a state recognizes–many of which would flunk the requirements of major religions. One doesn’t have to respect the driving ability of everyone who gets a license. Yes, they are on the road, but I can still teach my children that they are bad drivers and to not behave like them.
dedalus on December 11, 2008 at 12:49 PM
So you’re correlating Hitler himself being gay with him creating government restrictions on homosexuality.
Since you seek to do the same, does the correlation hold? Hmmm…
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 12:50 PM
He may have been Jewish too, but he was in the closet about both issues if true.
dedalus on December 11, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Particularly since a lot of rumors were swirled around about him. I mean, he’s considered the most evil figure of the 20th century. If you’re going to go for the gold, you have to take the lumps.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 12:54 PM
It’s OK, right4life. We don’t care that you’re gay. You’re among friends here.
Grow Fins on December 11, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Exactly; alcoholism is an inherited trait, this has been proven and yet I don’t see anybody trying to fight for the rights of the drunk driver that kills a family because he was born that way, let’s give him a break, right? No, and why not? because we have to be held responsible for our actions.
TitleofLiberty on December 11, 2008 at 12:56 PM
again you show your stupidity. since you don’t want restrictions on homosexuality, and whatever they want, why not the same for pedophiles??? and try to answer this for once.
gays can marry anyone of the opposite sex. they don’t need, or deserve special rights. you are as dumb as a box of rocks.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 12:59 PM
so to you calling someone gay is a way of degrading them…interesting.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Yes, interesting . . .
Grow Fins on December 11, 2008 at 1:02 PM
rrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiight, several friends
lolwut on December 11, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Doubly….interesting
Grow Fins on December 11, 2008 at 1:03 PM
look like wishful thinking on your part!! keep dreaming boys.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 1:05 PM
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 1:05 PM
I only dream that I had enough time on my hands to sit around all day and respond to each and every comment I don’t like on the internet.
lolwut on December 11, 2008 at 1:08 PM
yeah its nice!! too bad for you!
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Homosexuality is a choice.
Homosexuality is NOT a race.
Homosexuals do NOT deserve special rights based on their sexual preferences.
End of story.
SaintOlaf on December 11, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Prove it, Alex Jones.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 1:16 PM
You are correct on that, and I can teach my kids that same sex marriage is wrong and I think that my kids would be fine but have you seen what’s happened in the schools in Massachusetts where they now have to teach homosexuality to the children, etc? You sound like a responsible parent and I would like to think that I am one, congratulations to us that makes two out of how many million? Do you really think that all the children of this country are protected against the bombardment coming from everywhere to teach them about homosexuality? We have to take a stand for what we believe is right as well as you do, the problem is that too many of us are just saying well, it does not affect me, so why should I worry? I tell you why, because -to use your own analogy- yes, I can teach my children there are bad drivers but that does not protect them from the inexperienced teenager, licensed as he or she maybe, running them over or crashing into them. The solution? The family, teaching my children to be responsible behind the wheel and to always be aware of what is going on, but who is going to teach everybody else’s children? I don’t know but if we don’t stand for something, it will probably be the media and the American Idol generation and that is scary. It might be too late to fight the licensing of 16 year-olds to drive but it is not too late to stop marriage from becoming a free for all and I am taking that stand.
As for your argument that churches have more protection than eHarmony, they will go after their tax free status and bankrupt most of them; so no, that argument is not valid and you know it.
TitleofLiberty on December 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Sure, all the Nazis were gay. Ever more reason to hate them my dear.
The only man that was gay on your list was Ernst Roehm the leader of the SA, whom Hitler had murdered in 1934. Himmler and his SS thugs took over from the SA. Would you like me to provide you with a list of American and British Generals who might have been in the closet in WWII? The genius behind breaking the German Enigma Code at Bletchly Park was most certainly gay.
SC.Charlie on December 11, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Saint Olaf is genetic.
Grow Fins on December 11, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Sure. All that jumping to conclusions. *s*
mwdiver on December 11, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Prove that it isn’t. the burden of proof is on you my friend, not us.
TitleofLiberty on December 11, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Well, Goering was a transvestite. While the majority of transvestites are straight, those who tend to equate pedophilia and homosexuality like to believe that they’re all actually gay.
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Here we go again.
I’m not making the claim. TaintOaf is. He stepped up and said homosexuality is a choice. It is his job to prove his claim, not the other way around. If I claim 9/11 was a conspiracy, is it my job to prove it, or your job to prove me wrong?
Jesus Christ, how many goddamned people haven’t figured that basic concept out yet???
MadisonConservative on December 11, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Goering and the ones I mentioned were too. the whole idea that homosexuals were a noble victim of the vile homophobic nazis is laughable.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 1:30 PM
prove its not. since you’re so into proof.
right4life on December 11, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Guys,
right4life raised an interesting point about gay marriage, and I want to hear some answers.
Lets say that gays are allowed to marry and have the same government benefits as straights. Does this mean religious charities are forced to allow gay couples to participate in the adoption process? Does this mean a gay couple (assume loving) could get preference over a loving straight couple?
If the answer is yes to both, then I am completely against gay marriage.
Frank T.J Mackey on December 11, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »